The People (Denver: relocate, work, medical)

[hello-world]

Originally Posted by denverian

Interesting. I wonder why that would be? At first I thought maybe 15 of the 115 in Denver could be gay, so it wouldn't matter. But then subtract the Lesbians from the 100, and you're back where you started. Maybe it's something do do with high-altitude conception!

this skewness has been increasing, too. maybe you're right on the high altitude conception. as in, the concept of it (and moving away from family and friends to live in or near the mountain dream) is appealing more and more to men... or maybe it is to do with conception! as it turns out, there are also many more never-married men than women in the area (about 128:100), though way more divorced or seperated women than men in the area (73:100 men:women). good? bad?

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet...-redoLog=false

dunno.

[vegaspilgrim]

I noticed that the numbers for male/female in Denver changed dramatically from 1990 (48.66% male) to 2000 (50.52% male). That's an almost 2% increase in the male population. In 1990, males in Denver were actually the minority. What the heck happened in the decade inbetween?

[Igetaround]

In general, I think the people of Denver are pretty laid back and real. The kind of materialism you mentioned hangs out in Dallas (apparantly) and South Florida.

[DenverAztec]

Originally Posted by vegaspilgrim

I noticed that the numbers for male/female in Denver changed dramatically from 1990 (48.66% male) to 2000 (50.52% male). That's an almost 2% increase in the male population. In 1990, males in Denver were actually the minority. What the heck happened in the decade inbetween?

I know that sports were the driving force for two of my friends to move to Denver. Three major stadiums surronded by decent neighborhoods with many restaurants and clubs appeals to the sports lovers. Just a hunch, but all I know is the reason for two friends to relocate here in the last 10 years. It would not be the reason for me to personally move to a city but the appeal is different for everyone.

[hello-world]

Originally Posted by DenverAztec

I know that sports were the driving force for two of my friends to move to Denver. Three major stadiums surronded by decent neighborhoods with many restaurants and clubs appeals to the sports lovers. Just a hunch, but all I know is the reason for two friends to relocate here in the last 10 years. It would not be the reason for me to personally move to a city but the appeal is different for everyone.

i agree that could be part of it. i've wondered if it has a bit to do with sports in general - spectator sports, mountain sports, etc. - and whether that might tend to draw more single men than single women away from their families and friends to be near more of that. as for the participant sports lovers, it seems that mountain towns (ski area towns, for example) tend to be VERY skewed to high male:female. i guess that could have a bit to do with who tends to not mind getting away from friends and family to live in what can often be a less convenient place (fewer amenities, dealing with more severe/cold/snowy weather, etc.) for their playground or sport of choice. maybe some more of those people are also relocating to the denver/boulder area, lately, after a couple years in the mountains, to boot.

i suppose that might help explain some of the high male:female ratios in alaska and hawaii, too (except for the severe weather part in the hawaii case).

maybe industry in some of these places tends to be more male populated, too? i wouldn't imagine that in denver so much, though i guess there is a lot of military and military contracting that might be more male...

[Home/Land Owner]

I lived in Denver for 12 years and completed graduate school there. I found that the efforts I made in g-school were positively accepted in the professional community, a fact that is not the case in our current community. In general, I found that the people you meet are mostly from somewhere else and are very accepting of others, plus respectful of others' contributions.

While single I spent a lot of Wednesdays at the Art Museum's "Top of the Week" and got to know some nice people there. I met a huge cross section of people while living there; political types, technical types, artistic types, and, of course, athletic types. The arts are great in Denver and there are a lot of romantic getaway within an hour's driving distance.

The only negatives are the costs of housing and the severe fluctuation in opportunities when the economy changes (the commute to the next city of opportunity is 10-12 hours by car, east or west). I have heard, however, that rental costs are very good and while I was single I lived in a very nice building.

Big cities tend to function in relation to your work/family life. For example, I knew a lot of people in my field in Chicago but nearly no one else. That's O.K.

[livecontent]

Originally Posted by vegaspilgrim

I noticed that the numbers for male/female in Denver changed dramatically from 1990 (48.66% male) to 2000 (50.52% male). That's an almost 2% increase in the male population. In 1990, males in Denver were actually the minority. What the heck happened in the decade inbetween?

There is real simple reason. In most traditional societies, males babies are preferred. So the general trend is when a couple has a girl, they will continue having babies, until they have a boy and then stop. Since the chances, generally, are the same in having a boy or girl--the boy birth becomes the limiting factor and girls are not and girls continue to be produced. This causes societies to have more girls then boys. This also makes the assumption that in most societies, girl babies are not killed, which they are unfortunately in some.

Our western society is changing in a very subtle way, male baby preference are becoming less pronounced. In addition, our society is moving toward the production of less children, one or two children become common. Over time, the societal preference for boys, which being is diminish, and the satisfaction of one or two (boys or girls) causes the births of boys and girls to move toward a more even percentage production--again if the variable chances of having a girl or a boy remain the same.(for example: that is if abortion choices are not significant that kills off a fetus, to have a gender choice).

Really what you are looking at in these figures is not an increase in boys but a decrease in the production of girls- so what you are seeing is the percentage of males are moving from 48.66 to 50.52; this can be contributable to an increase of the percentage of males in the population, relative to the whole, that is being measured because decreases of females.

Of course there are other effects on the gender populations but what I am pointing out is a significant factor which has been known in science for years. Remember also the figures you are quoting are male and females--not just young adult male and females but babies, children and the aged adults. A fetus does not become male because there are more sports teams in Denver.

Eh, if I learned this is college, sociology and statistics, it must be correct.

Livecontent

[hello-world]

Originally Posted by livecontent

There is real simple reason. In most traditional societies, males babies are preferred. So the general trend is when a couple has a girl, they will continue having babies, until they have a boy and then stop. Since the chances, generally, are the same in having a boy or girl--the boy birth becomes the limiting factor and girls are not and girls continue to be produced. This causes societies to have more girls then boys. This also makes the assumption that in most societies, girl babies are not killed, which they are unfortunately in some.

Our western society is changing in a very subtle way, male baby preference are becoming less pronounced. In addition, our society is moving toward the production of less children, one or two children become common. Over time, the societal preference for boys, which being is diminish, and the satisfaction of one or two (boys or girls) causes the births of boys and girls to move toward a more even percentage production--again if the variable chances of having a girl or a boy remain the same.(for example: that is if abortion choices are not significant that kills off a fetus, to have a gender choice).

Really what you are looking at in these figures is not an increase in boys but a decrease in the production of girls- so what you are seeing is the percentage of males are moving from 48.66 to 50.52; this can be contributable to an increase of the percentage of males in the population, relative to the whole, that is being measured because decreases of females.

Of course there are other effects on the gender populations but what I am pointing out is a significant factor which has been known in science for years. Remember also the figures you are quoting are male and females--not just young adult male and females but babies, children and the aged adults. A fetus does not become male because there are more sports teams in Denver.

Eh, if I learned this is college, sociology and statistics, it must be correct.

Livecontent

really interesting thoughts, livecontent. especially interesting about the possibility of preference for boys resulting in more girls as you described it. it does look like the male:female ratio is growing over much of the country, though typically still more females than males elsewhere. it also looks to me like some of the stats could indicate that it is the 20 and 30 somethings' male:female ratio that is growing fastest for the denver and boulder counties, so 20 or 30 something males could be moving into the area at a quicker rate, if that's the case. then again, i guess it could have something to do with higher m:f ratio age groups aging over 10 years - 20-24 high m:f becoming 30-34 high m:f 10 years along, so maybe there was a wave of what you describe 35 years ago or so (early '70s) as part of it. i don't know that that explains why the area has such a high m:f ratio relative to others, though...

[hello-world]

Originally Posted by esc

Hmm.... Around Dallas, the "keep up with the Joneses" is leasing luxury cars, buying designer clothes, etc. I think often on credit. I think DFW has one of the lowest average credit scores in the country...

Would that attitude about the outdoor activities be out of arrogance/pretentiousness? Or more in a friendly competitive way? I haven't climbed a fourteener, will I be looked down upon by the "average" Denverite? Or would they welcome me along next time they go?

i think the attitude concerning outdoor things has to do with who comes here and the influence of the opportunities to do things (climb, hike, ski, snowboard, bike, run) once here. i think the "keep up with the joneses" part has a bit to do with the culture in general here - it's a bit more conformist and/or uniform than some other regions, maybe, and it actually is a bit about "having stuff" and "doing stuff" (often sports related) - sort of externally oriented re the coolest vacation, the coolest ski trip, conversation revolving around TV and sports and gear in some sectors - throughout the metro, urban and suburban. re the credit ratings, i am not sure about the denver metro, but it was home to several "most foreclosures" communities for a while there. it's also one of the higher car ownership rates in the country (something like 1.8+ per household, whereas typical tends to be a bit lower than that, a bit over 1.5 or 1.6 per household when averaged over households). i don't think you'd be looked down upon, in general (maybe by some, and maybe more in boulder for example) for not doing some of this "stuff" (climbing 14ers e.g.)...maybe just more left out by some circles at times.

[vegaspilgrim]

Originally Posted by livecontent

Our western society is changing in a very subtle way, male baby preference are becoming less pronounced. In addition, our society is moving toward the production of less children, one or two children become common. Over time, the societal preference for boys, which being is diminish, and the satisfaction of one or two (boys or girls) causes the births of boys and girls to move toward a more even percentage production--again if the variable chances of having a girl or a boy remain the same.(for example: that is if abortion choices are not significant that kills off a fetus, to have a gender choice).

Really what you are looking at in these figures is not an increase in boys but a decrease in the production of girls- so what you are seeing is the percentage of males are moving from 48.66 to 50.52; this can be contributable to an increase of the percentage of males in the population, relative to the whole, that is being measured because decreases of females.

I appreciate your attempt to explain this demographic phenomenon, but what you're saying doesn't make sense. If old prejudices against girls are dying out, why would there be a DECREASE in the the percentage of females? By that logic, the % of females in the population of Denver should be even HIGHER than it was in 1990, and instead it is much lower.